BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1575
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 1575 (Lara)
          As Amended  August 21, 2012
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |50-22|(May 31, 2012)  |SENATE: |23-13|(August 23,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2012)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    ED.  

           SUMMARY  :   Codifies the constitutional prohibition on the 
          imposition of pupil fees and establishes procedures to ensure 
          compliance with that prohibition.  Specifically, this bill  :  

          1)Statutorily prohibits all local education agencies (LEAs) from 
            imposing pupil fees.

          2)Defines "pupil fee" to include:

             a)   A fee charged as a condition for registering for or 
               participating in a school or class or extracurricular 
               activity that is an integral part of elementary and 
               secondary education; and,

             b)   A security deposit or other payment to obtain or 
               purchase a lock, locker, class apparatus, musical 
               instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment.

          3)Clarifies that this bill does not prohibit solicitation of 
            voluntary donations of funds or property, voluntary 
            participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, 
            schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or 
            other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising 
            activities.

          4)Requires the California Department of Education, commencing in 
            2014-15 and every three years thereafter, to develop and 
            distribute guidance regarding pupil fees and make it available 
            on its Internet Web site.

          5)Provides that the guidance shall not constitute a regulation.

          6)States that the provisions regarding the definition of and 








                                                                  AB 1575
                                                                  Page  2

            prohibition against pupil fees are declaratory of existing 
            law.

          7)Authorizes a complaint of noncompliance with the prohibition 
            against pupil fees to be filed with the principal of a school 
            under the existing Uniform Complaint Procedures process and 
            authorizes a complainant who is not satisfied with the 
            decision of the school to appeal the decision to the 
            California Department of Education (CDE).

          8)Requires, if a complaint is found to be meritorious, the 
            school to provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents, 
            and guardians including, where applicable, reasonable efforts 
            to ensure full reimbursement of illegally assessed fees.

          9)Requires schools to include information regarding the 
            prohibition against pupil fees and the complaint procedure in 
            the annual Uniform Complaint Procedure notice distributed to 
            pupils, parents and guardians.

          10)Exempts the cost of reimbursements for illegally assessed 
            pupil fees from eligibility for state mandated cost 
            reimbursement.
           
          FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Senate Appropriations 
          Committee:

          1)$400,000 cost to the CDE for administration and local support.

          2)Substantial mandate on local education agencies to adopt and 
            implement policies regarding the prohibition against pupil 
            fees, to administer a complaint process, and to train 
            appropriate staff.

          3)Vesting the SPI with the authority to require fee 
            reimbursement from individual local education agencies could 
            result in a reimbursable mandate.

           COMMENTS  :   The California Supreme Court ruled in Hartzell v. 
          Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899, 201, that pupil fees violate the 
          constitutional right to a free education.  Moreover, the court 
          ruled that extracurricular activities also must be free, because 
          they are an integral component of public education and a part of 
          the educational program.  









                                                                  AB 1575
                                                                  Page  3

          In September 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 
          filed a class action lawsuit alleging the unconstitutional 
          assessment of pupil fees by school districts ÝJane Doe, et al. 
          v. State of California, et al., (2010) Super. Ct. Los Angeles 
          County, BC445151].  The lawsuit followed an August 2010 report 
          from the ACLU that documented more than 50 public school 
          districts that required pupils to pay fees for textbooks, 
          workbooks, science labs, physical education uniforms, classroom 
          materials, and extracurricular activities.

          In December 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger and the ACLU announced 
          a tentative settlement that would have established a monitoring 
          and enforcement system, but the court did not finalize the 
          settlement.  The following April the ACLU filed an amended 
          complaint that dropped the Governor as a defendant and added the 
          SPI, the California Department of Education, and the State Board 
          of Education (the "State Education Defendants").  In May 2011 
          the State Education Defendants and the ACLU agreed to a stay of 
          court proceedings to allow for a legislative solution.  The 
          State of California did not agree to the stay and instead 
          suggested that the case be dismissed pending the outcome of the 
          legislative process.

          The legislative solution, which was supported by the ACLU, was 
          AB 165 (Lara).  Governor Brown vetoed AB 165 with the following 
          message: 

               This bill responds to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU 
               against the state, alleging that some local school 
               districts are denying students their right to a free 
               public education by charting improper fees for classes 
               and extracurricular activities.  Local district 
               compliance with this right is essential, and those who 
               fail should be held accountable.  But this bill takes 
               the wrong approach to getting there.

               The bill would mandate that every single classroom in 
               California post a detailed notice and that all 1,042 
               school districts and over 1,200 charter schools follow 
               specific complaint, hearing and audit procedures, even 
               where there have been no complaints, let alone 
               evidence of any violation.  This goes too far.

          After AB 165 was vetoed by the Governor, the court case was 
          reactivated.  On January 26, 2012, the court overruled demurrers 








                                                                  AB 1575
                                                                  Page  4

          filed by the State of California and the State Education 
          Defendants, allowing the legal case to move forward.  The courts 
          have consistently ruled against the imposition of pupil fees.  
          Therefore, if the Legislature does not enact its own solution, 
          it is almost certain that the court will order one.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 


          FN: 0005214